for me is it. four years down four more to go and seven american citizens charged with espionage one accuse whistleblower after another has been locked up for spilling national secrets and had the case of james hits old burger and his latest plea for a leak. and speaking of whistleblowers bradley manning remains locked up for allegedly causing the biggest data drop in u.s. history leaks that gave media outlets like the new york times a treasure trove of stories and yet the great lady isn't really covering manning's trial coming up an apology from the new york times public editor. and do as i say not as i do the u.s. reserves the right to spy on its citizens what does but that doesn't mean the u.s. can do the same u.s. representatives and block one attempt at world wide use dropping what it means for

your privacy and just a bit. it's thursday december sixth four pm here in washington d.c. i'm liz wall and you're watching our two. well starting off this hour another and another name has been added to the list of people charged under the espionage act a former contract linguist is being charged with stealing classified information from a navy base in bahrain james hits old burger has been in custody since october he is now asking a federal court to release him while he awaits his trial the government claims had sold berger was a fugitive in europe for four months after he was dismissed from his post the defense is is denying this saying the former linguist cooperated with law enforcement all his will berger is the seventh person to be charged under the espionage act under the obama administration here's a peek at of a few of the others the first one there thomas drake he was

a senior and i say executive bradley manning of course we've been covering his trial a lot he's accused of the biggest classified document leak and u.s. history and another one john kiriakou he was a director of counterterrorism operations in pakistan and now the newest name to be added to the list is james hits all berger and what they all share in common is that they have been charged with violating the espionage act so what is behind this latest case for more i'm joined by a political white house reporter josh gerstein hi there josh good to be with you so i want to ask you what the government's rationale is when considering him a fugitive. his defense is denying this. right so this fellow james hits a worker who was a contract linguist at a navy base in bahrain apparently got into some trouble there some colleagues noticed that he put a couple classified documents into books that he had to take it to his private

quarters there was an investigation and he basically got kicked out they sort of ended his work there and told him that he was no longer needed to go back to the u.s. and it looked like he was probably going to get fired but on the way back to the u.s. he stopped in germany and he decided not to go all the way back alternately hid out for three or four months in europe he says he was just traveling around the government says he was a fugitive from justice all right so he allegedly sent these documents to the hoover institute at stanford university most of the information found pertains to the revolution in iran back in one thousand nine hundred eighty nine there's also documents and photos. related to the iraq war the u.s. judge in this case has said that he doesn't he did not to someone i'd classify disseminate excuse me classified information so is this really leaking and violation of the espionage act can it really be considered as such. well it's just

strange case because it doesn't look like it was asked b. and it doesn't appear that he was trying to relay this to any foreign government it is perhaps close to a leaking case because he was putting some of these documents at an archive at stanford where any member of the public would get them you could do that is similar to kind of the wiki leaks situation where the documents were basically being put in an online library this is more of a physical library it does seem like an odd case to charge someone with a crime over there are classified information violations every day you know with more than a million people having these clearances it seems a little odd that these kinds of documents and full of them would lead to to felony charges so we're not talking about documents that could possibly put u.s. national security at risk well i mean technically they should be classified if they don't have some impact on national security but the highest classification level here was secret they seem to be sort of a situation reports that might be of use to someone that day or the next day but

probably not of a great use after some time goes by they're just not the kind of highly sensitive documents that would normally trigger a criminal prosecution in for you know leaking or for espionage or what have now is being charged with violating the espionage act now the seventh person under the obama administration what kind of sentence a is he looking at for this. well according to law books he could get up to twenty years normally get a much shorter sentence depending on a lot of other factors like whether you have any prior criminal history i would be really surprised if a case like this i went to trial you know we have had similar cases people including the director of the cia has been charged in the past with mishandling classified information and a national security adviser so the cases are brought sometimes go here we're not talking about a leader of the intelligence community we're talking about a contract linguist which makes this case a little unusual i'd be surprised if you got significant jail time ha well i know

in addition to this case that you've been following another case closely where the suspect is accused of violating the espionage act and that of course is the case and bradley manning you've written about how difficult it has been to report on it can you talk about some of these hurdles that you face trying to cover the case. well the main problem for reporters with covering the bradley manning case is that the documents the basic legal documents the pleadings that the two sides the prosecution and defense is filings with the court are not public there's no file room you can go to to look at them even the judge's orders are not public unless you choose to read them from the bench and then you better be able to write pretty fast because there's no public transcript of the proceedings so you see people scrambling to write things down it's just a very strange way of proceeding for those of us used to covering civilian courts where unless there's some specific reason you can get pretty much any document that's filed with the court so would you say i mean in your experience reporting in covering these cases that the way that. it's

a unique case trying to cover the bradley manning case. no because this is actually the standard way that military courts martial are held there usually is no access to documents and that may be something that needs to change especially in this modern era a kind of dates back to the day when court martials were done on the battlefield with the card table and a lieutenant or somebody carrying out the court martial there are now done by the military judges you know courtroom with high tech video cameras and all kinds of things so it seems like the procedure of getting access to the documents needs to catch up with the times a little bit. mantra saying as we had mentioned this gentleman is the seventh of seven suspect to be charged under the ask me on espionage act and this is just within the obama administration josh could we is this a trend that we're seeing. it certainly looks that way i mean there's as you say there's seven cases here in the obama administration depending on how you count

them two three or four during all presidential administrations before at least in terms of espionage act cases related to leaks and so it does seem to be a trend to really either have a zero tolerance and force one policy or at least some kind of much stricter more rigorously enforced when you're in the question's going to be is it fair to charge some people with felonies for the kinds of violations that other people in the past have gotten a slap in the wrist for or maybe just lost their clearance or their job yet you know whether or not it's a tragedy and them we are seeing that the seventh person now and this is kind of raising suspicion that. whistleblowers are accused whistleblowers are are being singled out are there is a there's a crackdown on those that try to blow the whistle. yet i mean in several of these people could be characterized as whistleblowers i'm not sure this latest case the seventh case is the best example of that because he was sending these documents

back to stanford where they were apparently they sitting on a dusty shelf somewhere if he really wanted to bring them to public attention immediately he probably could have found another route but you know it is something that i think academics are going to be concerned about and another interesting aspect of this case is stanford apparently still has these documents they're retaining them and he's actually charging retaining classified information which raises that question of whether stanford has some special privilege to hold on to classified information that the government wants back that mr gets a burger doesn't have. an interesting case raises a lot of questions and thank you for staying on top of it and telling us what you know that was a politico white house reporter josh marsian. well here at r.t. we have been following the case of bradley manning very closely and it's been called one of the most significant cases in u.s. military history however it's gotten little to no coverage on the mainstream news at a rare news conference earlier this week in which manning's attorney david combs made his first public appearance speakers brought attention to this. i also want to say

the journalists covering the room with me. and i'm. one of them you won't hear on this is the new york times. what you see here is journalists covering a trial that is very difficult to cover and you don't see that major media coverage . well that's right that's wiki leaks u.s. attorney michael ratner calling out the new york times for neglecting to cover the manning case the times that you can recall was one of the first newspapers to partner up with wiki leaks during the initial release of cable gate using information in the document leaks as the basis for many of its reports no doubt benefiting from the massive amounts of information it's no secret that those following the case closely have been unhappy with the paper's silence activists have made their feelings known from day one here's one example the wiki leaks truck

you see there recently decided to make a stop in front of the gray lady's office it commemorated the visit by posting a picture online saying quote this was in a tweet. troll your ass harder than ever until you send a journalist to cover bradley manning's trial well some of the media community seem to agree with that sentiment the small group of reporters that did follow the case closely have commented on the lack of coverage as well here's the new republic on the absence of the new york times at fort meade quote i truly do not understand your silence it's bad enough that private manning has been badly treated for revealing truth to power it's unconscionable and sad if the time sits quietly by saying nothing even worse simply running a.p. wire copy to let the story burry itself with a publication is now apologizing for the lack of coverage somewhat the paper's public editor margaret sullivan wrote a response saying quote and failing to set its own reporter to cover the fast.

aiding and important free trial testimony of bradley manning the new york times missed the boat over the past several days as compelling testimony over the harsh treatment of this twenty four year old army private turned whistleblower or illegal informant depending on your point of view what did the media's own the times was notably absent. well it will be interesting to see if these awards will be followed by any action and if we do in fact see any reporters from the times make that trip up to for me and. i also had here on r t just because big brother spies on american citizens doesn't mean the un can u.s. representatives say the internet needs to remain free from government control song ever critical to you that story next.

the worst you were going through the white house or the. radio guy for a minute. what. did you feel. i think anything like.

our continue. as a surprise there. well internet surveillance will have no borders if the united nations against its way members of the united nations international telecommunications union have agreed to work toward putting in place standards for the internet that would allow ease dropping worldwide the u.n. says allowing spying on

a global scale would allow authorities to detect when copyrighted material is transferred this is never raised in concerns of the u.s. house of representatives members say they don't feel right about the u.n. having the power to eavesdrop but this is the same congress that has made cybersecurity a top priority attempting to pass legislation like sopa pipa and most recently which allows the government to wiretap americans overseas for more let's go now to our t correspondent. in new york hi there anna stasia so first off can you tell us more about the un's proposal. well liz definitely sounds like a very scary and quite convoluted story as so of the body we're talking about here is the international telecommunications union the i.t. you this is a specialized agency within the united nations that has been around for decades it comprises all of the members of the u.n. one hundred ninety three members and is based in geneva and it specializes in focuses on communications technology and what's been going on is they've been kind

of winning this option of debating the possibility of implementing a pretty tough standard for the internet that's causing a lot of hype and debate and controversy and even though this says their goal is to try to track down copyrighted material and data that's being passed around the internet and transferred around by users and is not in any way shape or form going to affect free speech the substance of what they're considering and they have been considering certainly speaks about something completely different what they're talking about implementing is deep packet inspection something that could allow governments to really dig much deeper into the data flying around on the web and you know just to kind of explain it in simple terms of traditionally the kind of material that is being transferred online what we can trace is a name and an ip address very generic info if this deep packet inspection is applied the people applying it and the government supplying it will be able to see the substance of the material in the packets being passed around and certainly

because we're talking about content here specific private content that might be shared by users this is certainly causing a lot of debate online some of that debate the debate critics say that this can lead to internet censorship how so. well you know critics are pretty outraged by this whole idea they're saying that this is full on big brother if this deep packet inspection is applied that we're not talking about you know national levels here and there we're talking about a global scale if all of these countries word of course sign up for something like this and you know basically people are comparing this to our chat with a friend on line you know if they can see who you're talking to they can't necessarily see exactly what you're saying with this new standard they would be able to track down exactly what is being said to you know to compare this to maybe hiring a detective one would be able to see where a person goes and who they meet with but with this new standard this is basically

allowing a detective to wire tap your phone your text messages and basically get all of the possible information in terms of what you're doing so major concerns about exactly what this kind of thing can lead to but it's important that we have to see that some people are saying look this is not yet been really implemented this is something that's being considered we have some member states that are part of the you who are against this idea we have big businesses saying they wouldn't support this and it's afford to keep in mind that this is you one body that doesn't have any mandatory powers it can basically not force any kind of document they sign on to the other countries so if this were to become an international kind of document that they adopt then for those countries that have had major control over internet this would open a lot more doors but for those who still believe in freedom online certainly they don't have to sign up to this and that leaves a little more room for people who are worried that this is a global takeover of the internet well i guess congress here is worried about that

they are opposing it and they passed a resolution urging the u.s. not to give the u.n. the power to control the internet can you tell us more about this well us certainly liz we've had in september we've seen the senate. resolution begging really for the u.s. government to not let the this you one body control the internet and try to bring in to force any sort of documents like this and yesterday we saw the u.s. house of representatives vote unanimously for a resolution asking the u.s. government to not let the u.n. have control over the internet three hundred ninety seven votes against zero but you know some people are saying that while congress is saying oh we just want to make sure the internet is free their excuse is you know the internet has to be free from government control critics are saying let's look at the bigger picture it's quite likely that congress is more interested in not letting any sort of international body get involved in something that it could have power by itself at

home and the i.t. you has been saying to the u.s. relax this is really something that we're just a u.n. body we can't really have power over you what goes in the in the united states but congress has definitely been taking these precautionary measures and making sure that the u.s. president really hears that this is something that they don't want by any means the while honest. congress has made it here in the u.s. has made cyber security a top priority attempting to pass through a legislation to regulate the internet. so was this kind of a do as i say not as i do. well isn't that certainly the the opinion that we get when people hear that congress is all of a sudden you know blocking this u.n. idea certainly there can be concerns with exactly what the i to you is considering it certainly is. a valid reasoning and valid questions that people are asking about these deep pocket inspections but when it comes to congress when only last year we've seen the whole ordeal with sopa and pipa and you know just really trying to

track material online and being see a match with this big public outrage the question is is this another example of a double standard when congress wants to consider something within the u.s. it goes ahead and tries to do whatever it wants and you know monitor everybody and their mother but when it comes to you and united nations body and we have to remember this particular idea was passed around and initiated by china so all my god china again trying to get involved certainly something that people are saying basically congress by voting against this. precaution is just you know trying to score some political points trying to kind of keep the power on its territory you know but of course when we see attempts in the u.s. to block anonymous comments online and of course you don't wiretapping and monitoring things online warrantless li it's a whole different story nobody's screaming and voting you know unanimously against that regulating the internet within u.s. borders is kind of what the ideal is but the u.n.

stepping in is taking it too far so it certainly is certainly something that looks like the way the congress is reacting to this if it's a matter of internet freedom that it can control that it's a whole different story when it comes to the u.n. body the u.s. is saying no thanks we'll deal with our things by ourselves and resting on a stasi a thank you that was our correspondent honest. and that it was story we're always covering the revolving door between legislators and lobbyists probably because the hits just keep on coming we've been collecting files on the people who make a living hopping back and forth between the public and private sector and these people are earn connections and power in the public sector which they can leverage into higher salaries in the private sector of course it's a win win for these individuals to go back and forth but who loses out all regular people whose interests are put on the back burner in favor of big business whose the latest and deserving of a mention

a woman by the name of elizabeth fowler now liz has been going back and forth between the public and private sector her entire career specializing in the health industry and she hit the big time as the top health care aide to senator max baucus of montana now the chair of the senate finance committee she went off to well point the largest health insurance provider in the country but she made it back to the public sector just in time to draft the affordable care act well obamacare and health care reform in general was a lot it is a progressive step it was also a boon for insurance companies and that is because everyone by law everyone needs to buy insurance through private health care providers like wellpoint listen to this bill moyers report from two thousand and nine when he explains why health care reform might be tainted by private interests. the health insurance industry. has six lobbyist for every member of congress and more than five hundred of them are

former congressional staff members laughter fellow wrote the law president obama called upon her to oversee its implementation now as you can see her job as the special assistant to the president was a pay drop from her job at the senate so perhaps it was time for a salary increase which she is most assuredly getting at her new gig at johnson and johnson already received six hundred thirty dollars to speak with the johnson and johnson executives back in two thousand and two the supporting to legit store so that lives fowler to the revolving door list and if you want to thank her for the health care bill make sure to address that letter to johnson and johnson's office in d.c. . and we're going to leave it off there but the capital account is up next on our to let's check in with lauren lister to see what is on today's agenda lauren is the fiscal cliff we hear so much about we hear the comings and goings of obama and

boehner on tax policy as though this was the issue that was going to solve the u.s. economy's problems or the u.s. government's budget deficit problems and does it i mean is really such a small part of the iceberg. of economic crisis that this country has been dealing with for the past four years and lo and behold when you talk to people that have been in the game for a while like the former republican strategist has been that we spoke to they say no it's very minimally addressing the problems of the u.s. and to put that in even broader scope our guest kevin phillips his recent book is about seven hundred seventy five so he just finished a book on the american revolution many more economic factors playing a role there than what we maybe are taught in grade school here in the u.s. so we looked at what the lessons are today looking at the. current economic problems and monetary problems and got his perspective a perspective he says that politicians are not likely to have he says they don't

read history books but you know what we are giving them a clip notes just in case they happen to be watching and will give all of our viewers the cliff notes as well to in a couple of minutes right that is all coming up next on the capital account with laura lester thanks lauren but that is going to do it now for the news for on the stories we covered head on over to our you tube channel you tube dot com slash r t america you can also check out our web site that is our t.v. dot com slash usa it can also follow me on twitter at liv's wall we'll be right back here in a half hour see that. the

capital account i'm laurin mr. technology innovation all the developments around. the future.

admission is free credit taishan free. for charges free arrangement free. free. free. old free blog morning video for your media projects a free medio dog r.t. dot com. you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so you think you understand it and then a glimpse something else you hear or see some other part of it and realize everything you thought you don't know. welcome to the big picture.